ORDERS OF THE DAY

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a matter of House business, the members of the opposition and members of the government have been meeting for some time to discuss the question of changes to the rules under which we operate here.

We have reached an agreement, Madam Speaker, although not quite finalized in terms of the wording; nonetheless, we have reached an agreement in principle. So it is my intention, once a Memorandum of Understanding has been finalized, hopefully within the next few days, that I will call the committee on Rules to meet perhaps by mid-February. It will take that much time, I am told by the officers of the House, to create the necessary amendments to give effect to the principles that have been discussed and agreed to amongst all of the members of the House.

This agreement, Madam Speaker, would be on the basis of a trial period, a one-session trial period. The formal change to the rules would end at the end of next year but at the same time could be renewed or altered, as the case may be, following the effect of the changes, shall we say, and how they benefit each member of the House.

So I am pleased to announce that today. I think it has been a long time in coming, several years, I suppose, in its original genesis. The fact of the matter is, we have reached an agreement. We will finalize that within the next few days in terms of Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by the opposition and by members of the Liberal caucus here in the House so that I think all of us look forward to this change.

Hopefully, it will work out well, and all members will see a benefit. For that matter, Madam Speaker, not just the members, but I think the public will benefit as well from the fact that they will see a better structured system, one that will be more predictable and be able to be better understood perhaps by the public in general.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

(Eighth Day of Debate)

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on the proposed motion of the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) for an address to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in answer to his speech at the opening of the session, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson, who has 33 minutes remaining.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, yesterday in the short time that I had available I referenced the fact that I believe politics in many ways is like the tides of a sea: there are the ebbs, there are the flows. I think one of the opportunities, one of the great privileges we have as members of the Legislature is not only to observe that process but to be part of it as well.

I referenced how after perhaps more than a decade in which the tide was very much a right-wing tide, in which the agenda was very much driven by the sort of new-right policies which involved jettisoning many of the original tenets of parties such as the Conservative Party, after that process, even a few months ago, as we saw right-wing governments elected in such countries as France, where we saw the rise to power in the United States of the Newt Gingriches of the world, that it appeared that the right wing was continuing in the ascendance.

Even here in Manitoba, with the election of this government which, despite its best efforts to hide its true political nature, is a right-wing government, Madam Speaker, the tide appeared to be very much flowing in that direction.

But you know, what is interesting is how there was a watershed very shortly after this election here in Manitoba when we saw just how cynical this Conservative government was in its election strategy. This was the government that was going to, and they used this on the doors, save the Winnipeg Jets. They were the only party that was going to save the Winnipeg Jets.

Now, in the rural areas, it was, they were going to put in no more than $10 million, but in true Conservative form, and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was very much--well, pardon me, he said he was out of the loop on this, hear no evil, see no evil.

The bottom line was, the people of Manitoba were sold a bill of goods. You know what we saw? I have to be careful in the words that I use, but let us put it this way. The Conservative Party did not tell the truth on the Winnipeg Jets, but, Madam Speaker, in the election the Conservative Party went further.

I referenced yesterday how this party, this so-called political party across the way, the so-called Conservative Party, is jettisoning more than 80 years of tradition of support for a balanced approach to the economy. They are looking at privatizing MTS. Now, did anyone hear about MTS in the election? Did the Premier go out into the rural areas and northern areas saying we are going to privatize MTS? No. When they reorganized MTS in July of this year, and we said that we saw this as a preview to privatization, what did the government say? No, we are not going to privatize; we have no intention of doing it.

* (1100)

The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is this government did not tell the truth in July. In September, in the committee of this House, I asked the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) repeatedly, are you going to privatize MTS? You know what the minister said? The only one talking about it is the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and the New Democratic Party. Well, in questioning in this December session, we found out, it was later confirmed by a press release that was rushed out, that this government is looking at privatizing MTS.

Well, I do not know what has happened to this party, this Newt Gingrich party, this party of tuition fees and book advances. Boy, they have got it right down to that level. I remind them in terms of ethics, and the Premier should, I think, reflect on this with his comments earlier this week in which he accuses us of McCarthyite tactics on Monday in raising questions about the ethics and some of the dealings of one Mr. Bessey and the Faneuil deal. This is the government, by the way, which wants to now sell off part or all of MTS. He accused us of McCarthyite tactics. I would suggest he read a book, On the Take, and it might explain to him why some of that same type of ethical approach led to his party at the national level going from government to two seats.

I believe there is a smell coming from the MTS-Faneuil deal, and I believe it is a smell that reflects on the ethics of the dealings of this government and the inability of this Premier and this government to recognize the reality of what is going on: these deals with friends, these book advances, these fancy transfers of debentures to companies that did not exist, phantom companies, you know, these deals with Tory friends, whether it be with the Winnipeg Jets, whether it be some of the deals like the 280 Broadway deal, whether it be things--small things to some people, but big issues to communities such as Cross Lake--in which Mr. Barrett, a Mr. Cubby Barrett, also known as the sponsor of the aboriginal party, also one of the key drivers on the hog marketing board or the destruction of that, the same Mr. Barrett who is on the Conservative financial committee who contributed in a major way to their campaign.

Three times the previous owners of Charlie's Inn in Cross Lake attempted to get a liquor licence. They were opposed by the people of the community. Madam Speaker, the people of the community did not want an expanded liquor facility on the outskirts of their community. But one Mr. Cubby Barrett buys the hotel, one Mr. Cubby Barrett lobbies this government, and their liquor licence is approved.

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

You know, when I heard the reference a few days ago to this pork company, Elite Swine, I mean, what a name for a Tory outfit, Elite Swine, because this government has got to the point of arrogance to which we see this government sees nothing wrong with that kind of manipulation of the political process. Set up a phony political party to try and split the vote. I tell you it backfired, Mr. Acting Speaker. You want a liquor licence, you lobby the board. If you are a Tory contributor, you get what you want. If you are in dealings with companies like Faneuil and you want to make a deal and then you want to go and set yourself up afterwards, no problem, there is no problem with ethics in that.

An Honourable Member: What about Workforce 2000 and Kozminski?

Mr. Ashton: The Workforce 2000, we can run through the many inside deals that this government has received.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

Whatever happened to Conservatives such as Rodmond Roblin, who in 1905 talked about the need for MTS, who said why they purchased it: I believe that it is a good commercial proposition, and whatever profit there is in the operation of the telephone system from this time on will belong to the people of Manitoba, rather than a private company. I am also proud of the fact that we have been able to secure for the people of Manitoba the first complete system of government-owned telephones in the continent of North America, and I am sure from the information that has been secured that the result, as years go by, will prove more and more beneficial to the people.

That was a Conservative vision, and for how many years have we had that vision in this province? You know what? I think the problem with this Conservative government, they remind me of some of the stereotypical sort of unwanted relatives visiting the home. They stick around. First, they drink all the booze; then they eat all the food; finally, they get kicked out. But, when they are gone, what do they take with them? It is the same thing with this government. They have no mandate to give away MTS. They have no mandate to privatize MTS. This has been a Manitoba tradition. It has given us good service, and it has given us the lowest rates in North America. They have no mandate to do that. They never once mentioned it in the election, and we, Madam Speaker, will not ever let this government sell off our assets, because Manitoba Telephone System, as Rodmond Roblin said in 1905, is owned by the people. We are the shareholders. You know what I think is happening? We are a microcosm.

An Honourable Member: Five minutes.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I will be going a few more minutes, and I certainly have no difficulty giving some leave to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) if we need to sit beyond twelve o'clock. Unfortunately, given some of the lengthy points of order today and other matters--well, if that is agreeable. I am not attempting to prevent the PC speaker from speaking, but you know this may be my last opportunity in this House to speak about MTS because this government is fast-tracking it. By January, February, we may have a partial or a full sell-off of MTS. This may be my only opportunity, our only opportunity, to address this in debate, and that is why I ask for the government House leader and others to at least give me a few more minutes to put on the record how important this is.

You know, Madam Speaker, what is happening in Manitoba is evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of the right-wing agenda which they are following. We are in a country now where we have record bank profits. We have got record corporate profits. We have members opposite defend those bank profits in this House. We have the average employee--the average industrial wage has dropped the last 10, 20 years, but the salaries of corporate executives have continued to increase. We are in a world now where bond traders can sink currencies, can sink governments. We are in a world in which one trader can sink a bank. We are in the second richest country in the world according to the UN, and yet we have this kind of inequality developing in our society.

Madam Speaker, the interesting thing is it would be a lot worse if it was not for the many of the programs that the New Democratic Party fought for over the years. You know, people talk about the welfare state. They talk about social services. Stats Canada recently indicated that the only reason that the inequality in this country has not gotten worse has been because of our social programs. But what are these right-wing governments--and, by the way, I include the Liberal Party nationally. They have sold out any vestige of Liberal principles. What are they doing? They are cutting unemployment insurance. They are cutting welfare. They are eroding our health care system. They are eroding the welfare state that has protected us from the kind of inequalities in the United States.

There is something wrong with this picture when the First Nations have to camp out at The Forks, have to camp out at Indian Affairs to get the most basic human right, which is decent housing, when we live in a society where we have so much. I mean, we have, according to the UN and the World Bank, we have $800,000 worth of assets per person.

Why, then, are we so incapable of dealing with child poverty, the many frustrating situations in our First Nations communities? We cannot even settle treaty land entitlement obligations that were negotiated by governments in good faith and which First Nations are looking to. There is something wrong with this picture. It is a system that is immoral. It is immoral, and I say increasingly across this province and this country people are starting to recognize the connection between the Tory friends and the kind of ethical practices we see with their cousins in other places, the book deals, the liquor licences approved on demand, the changes to our marketing system, and now one of our most sacred assets, MTS, all up for grabs under this government and all particularly up for grabs for Tory friends.

At some point in time, Madam Speaker, people have to say, enough is enough. I believe people in other jurisdictions are doing that. I look at France; I look even to our province next door in Ontario; I look at many things that are happening internationally. People are saying, enough is enough. You know, we keeping cutting back on jobs and downsizing. Who is going to be left with the jobs to provide the goods? The bottom line is we cannot continue with this corporate and government anorexia. We keep starving ourselves; we starve the people; we starve our future generations.

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a race for the bottom, but, at some point in time, enough is enough, and I say to the Premier because I sense, and I have seen this with governments before. It can affect all political stripes, but it is particularly endemic to right-wing governments because their sense of ethics does not separate their "friends"--I put that in quotation marks--from the kind of ethical decisions that we expect in terms of public policy. I think the Premier should reflect on some of the decisions that have been made, because I believe they are not ethical decisions and his government has been a part of them.

* (1110)

But whether it is the kind of political arrogance that can come from a majority government, this is a third-term government, or whether indeed it is a part of the broader picture, I say to the Premier that many of the things that are happening are just not acceptable to the public of Manitoba, many of the people who elected this government. They do not want their health care system eroded; they do not want the social services cut; they do not want their telephone system sold off to the likes of the Faneuil group, those kinds of dealings; and they do not buy this kind of rhetoric which the Premier trots out on the Jets and on the Faneuil deal that tries this creative arithmetic to hide the fact that we have questionable deals.

The bottom line is here. Politics is always a process of tides; there are the ebbs and there are the flows. While this government in April of this year may have felt that it was on the high tide, that it was surfing away, I say to them that, if they continue on the path they are continuing now, they will follow the same footsteps as their cousins in other jurisdictions, the federal Conservative Party. Just as quickly as the people supported them to be a majority government in April, if they sell out their birthright, whether it be their health care system or their telephone system, the people will send them a message, and they will pay the political price.

With those remarks, and I apologize for having run somewhat longer than was anticipated because of the delay earlier, I also want to take the opportunity to wish everybody a Merry Christmas, and I look forward to being back in the new year with our new set of rules that was adopted. You know, there are times when we can work together, Madam Speaker, in this House. The rules are a good example of that, and perhaps if we can do it on things like the Manitoba Telephone System and some of the other issues I mentioned, we might learn a lot. Thank you.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, it really is my pleasure to address this Assembly after such a lengthy period of time. Contrary to most of our traditions, the Leaders of the two main parties in this Legislature did not speak at the conclusion of the last session on the 3rd of November. I missed that opportunity, quite frankly, the opportunity to wrap up and give a perspective on the things that have happened in the province, particularly since the election campaign of this spring, and members opposite have raised the matter in their speeches recently. I think there is a great sense of bitterness and envy behind many of their comments, and it creeps into their demeanour each and every day.

An Honourable Member: You have to climb up to get into the gutter.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, after the diatribe that we have listened to from the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) and her colleagues, I think that some gentle nudging of this nature hardly seems like the subject that ought to get under her skin, but, as I say, these days there is a sense of bitterness in the members opposite that blinds them from any rational review or objective analysis of anything that goes on.

I want to begin by just saying to all of the members of the Chamber that we certainly are delighted that they are all here in this Assembly, that the democratic process depends upon having a strong opposition as well as a strong government. I know that the members opposite continue to do their share in attempting to further the democratic process in Manitoba, and I congratulate each and every one of them on their re-election. I congratulate each and every one of them on the work that they do in this Legislature on behalf of their constituents.

I want to thank all of our staff in the Chamber, in the Assembly. I want to particularly thank the Pages who each and every day serve us and work with us to try and make this Assembly work better and work well.

I want, for certain, to wish each of them and their families a very merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, best of the holidays that are being celebrated by people of all religions at this time of year and, of course, a happy healthy and prosperous 1996.

In addressing the throne speech, I want to make emphasis, Madam Speaker, on the difference, I think, between the attitude of those on the government side and those opposite that is contained within the throne speech. The throne speech is basically a forward-looking document. It is a document that outlines the challenges that we as a government and as a society and as an economy are going to face in the future in this province, in this country and in this world. It is optimistic, though, because in recognizing that there are serious challenges, it also recognizes that there are many opportunities, opportunities for advancement, opportunities for, I would say, reorienting this province on a path of economic growth, the like of which we have not seen for a long, long time.

It is ironic, but just one small example, I think, notes that point, and that is, everybody opposite and indeed many thousands of people throughout western Canada assumed that the demise of the Crow rate subsidy would probably be a death knell for countless farmers in western Canada and indeed an economic blow from which they may not recover.

That was the assumption, and it is still being, of course, perpetrated by members like the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) in an attempt to try and appear as though they have some sense of what is good for agriculture in Manitoba.

The fact of the matter is that the removal of the Crow rate, as difficult as that will be and is for farmers in this province, has unleashed a sense of entrepreneurship that we have not seen here in the farm community for decades.

What it has done is cause people to take a new look at the economic circumstances of the world in which they operate. What they are saying is, and it should not be a surprise to anybody, well, if we are going to have to pay so much more per tonne to ship the grain to an export port at the east coast or the west coast, are we not better off to find new and creative ways of investing in our economy to consume this grain here?

All that people talked about throughout the decades about having flour and pasta and all of those value-added, processed foods being done here rather than in eastern Canada, whether it is processing, meat-processing operations, barley malting, all those kinds of things that, because of the Crow rate were centralized in the East, all of a sudden we have this great entrepreneurial response unleashed, just almost by magic.

Yet it is the natural economic response that throughout the ages we have seen will happen. People faced with new circumstances will find ways to take advantage of those circumstances, and, in effect, turn a lemon into lemonade. We have over a half-billion dollars in value-added investment announced since this summer.

Now, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says, Ralph Goodale. Well, heaven knows, Ralph Goodale was not the person who came up with that idea. I mean, I remember Charlie Mayer starting the process of discussion about it and being absolutely devastated by the opposition, the Liberal opposition in Parliament, and going throughout the length and breadth of western Canada getting every farmer to sign a petition and damning the federal government for even considering working it through in a much more, I might say, palatable way.

He was going to phase it out over a longer period of time. He was going to provide far greater compensation for the farmers, adjustment, all those kinds of things that should have been done. He was absolutely condemned by the Liberals and New Democrats of this world as they did their favourite trip to the opposition mentality.

* (1120)

The fact of the matter is, he was faced with a circumstance that he had absolutely no choice about, which was that the federal government had to get its deficit down in a very, very rapid period of time, cold turkey, literally, removed the Crow rate, and then, of course, got the greatest benefit of all--that is, the agricultural commodity prices came up to all-time record levels for wheat and barley and all those commodities--and did it without a vote, did it without consultation, did it without any of the normal democratic processes, and fell into a bucket of fertilizer and came up smelling like a rose because of the circumstances of the day. Unbelievable.

But I digress, Madam Speaker; that is not what I wanted to talk about. It was just an example that I could not help but give you.

The central message of the throne speech is that first and foremost our government will continue to fulfill the commitments that we made to the people of Manitoba in the spring when they gave us the third mandate.

We want all Manitobans to know that our priorities are clear: strong economic growth, job creation, excellence in education, protection of vital social services, and the promotion of safe and healthy communities.

Madam Speaker, what is implicit though in this optimistic outlook for the future is that we are prepared as a government, and as a society we must be prepared, to deal with change because the fact of the matter is that change is inevitable, growth is optional. What we see here in the throne speech is that our government is prepared to accept change and turn it into growth and opportunity whereas the members opposite want to fight change day after day after day. Any type of change is seen as bad. Any type of change is seen as negative. You know, I do not know whether it is a flatter society outlook, whether it is the ostrich mentality of having your head in the sand and ignoring the reality of everything that is going on around here in the world, and members opposite can talk about these things, and they can talk about the impacts.

I just heard the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talking about how one trader could bring down an entire bank, that a collection of traders could destroy a currency. These are circumstances that are unprecedented, that no government in the history of the world had to deal with, the power that has happened as a result of what? The globalization of the economy, the introduction of electronic technology that would allow people to react and respond in an instant worldwide to a change in currency and to a shift in trading patterns and all of those things. That is reality, and he talked about it as though he acknowledges it. Except his answer was we have got to fight all of this. We have got to resist it. We have got to not be a part of the world. We are going to opt out. That is what he suggested. Well, how preposterous could you possibly be in your perspective of the circumstances that we all live in in this economy in this world. It is changing dramatically. It is changing unalterably, and no government, certainly not a government of a provincial nature, could resist those changes.

What we have to do is take the lemons and turn them into lemonade--no one understands the forces that are out there--and take advantage of them for Manitoba's benefit. Which is why, interestingly enough, we are benefiting out of the loss of the Crow rate, because we are the first ones to jump in and take advantage with the unleashing of the entrepreneurial energy that is out there. Which is why we are going to be taking advantage, and are taking advantage, of the changing trading patterns and creating jobs in transportation. The transportation hub that people dreamed about, that this would be the Chicago of the North, this would be the trading centre, the distribution centre--all of those kinds of things are indeed what is happening because there are people out there who are willing to make those investments, take those risks. We as a government are supporting them in those efforts.

It is the technology that is creating this, as I have said in some speeches, the Omaha of the North where we have become a centre for telecommunications, a centre for back office functions, computerizations and all of those kinds of things that we have many advantages of--Central time zone, the synergies of many people who are involved in this whole finance, telecommunications and computerized area. All of these things can and will happen here with the right attitude and the right approach.

Now, interestingly enough, if you could look for a company that would fit with that mode, that would create the synergies, the investment, the jobs and the opportunity for value-added growth in that sector, one that you would immediately point to would be Faneuil. Indeed, I have talked about that in detail because the members opposite all of a sudden jump on that and find every possible way to discredit them and to throw them out of the province when that is exactly what you want to attract, that kind of company, into this environment.

The negativity that we are seeing from members opposite, you know, it knows no bounds. They are negative towards the province. They are negative towards the people. They are negative towards investors, towards people doing business; anything that smacks of opportunity and achievement, growth, investment, they are negative towards.

You know, the old saying, and I cannot remember from which of our predecessors in this Chamber, but it has been used on occasion, about looking up the wrong end of a sewer pipe, and that specifically describes the members opposite in terms of their perspective in this House and in public.

The other aspect of their perspective that I find so unbelievable is their sense that they want to portray to people that they can criticize everything and not take responsibility for anything.

Well, the fact is that to govern is to assume responsibility. We do not back away from it. We cannot back away from it. If ever, and Heaven forbid that it happened, they were in government, they would have to take responsibility finally for making things happen, for making choices and decisions.

I want to just tell you the difference, because New Democrats who are in government are entirely different from this breed of never democrats who are opposite us in the Chamber. These negative democrats that we see over there do not compare to their colleagues who are in government, because like them or not, and the public for some reason does not seem to like them, the fact is that when they are in government, they have to take responsibility and they have to make choices and then their choices are open to scrutiny.

In Ontario, the New Democratic administration there, which thought initially when it was elected it could buy its way and spend its way out of a recession, has put them in the circumstances that they are in the worst economic conditions that they have seen in their history.

I said this last week--[interjection] Madam Speaker, I am going to speak about Saskatchewan, and I invite the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) to listen, but I said last week in my speech to the Chamber of Commerce that the Province of Manitoba now enjoys the third best borrowing rate in Canada. We are next only to British Columbia and Alberta.

Who would ever have believed in 1988 when we took office that we would be able to borrow at a better rate than Ontario, 100 basis points better rate than Ontario?

Now, all of that happened--[interjection] Sure, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says, it is because of Bob Rae. Well, the fact of the matter is, it is true. His administration has changed all of that with this incredible debt load that they have applied on the province that even the biggest, wealthiest province in this country cannot handle the bad policies that a New Democratic administration will bring to bear on any economic situation.

* (1130)

They are in that circumstance, and they are under a cloud and an immense load that was as a result of those kinds of economic policies.

You know, they go about things in such--they talk about ethics. This is really strange. Here is ethics. The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) raises here in the House an issue that he says that he has a report that says that we are planning to close--well, how many hospitals in rural Manitoba? Eight. And he names the communities. How irresponsible can you be? He names communities, eight of them, and says, they are planning to close them.

When pressed, where does he get this information, he says, well, well, it came from the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation and research. Of course, people go to the centre, they phone them and say, tell us about this report. They say, we have not done anything like that. We have absolutely no information.

Absolutely false information. He just makes up a rumour, puts it on the floor, and it is being done day after day after day. Now, you want to talk about playing with people's lives. You want to talk about irresponsibility.

On the one hand, they say to us, you have not consulted enough. So the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has consultative groups out there who are working in the community. The management, the senior staff, the stakeholders who work in the hospital system are all out there churning out ideas, ideas to do what? To try and make better use of the dollars that we spend in health care. Why? Because the fact of the matter is that in health care today we cannot possibly justify doing what we are doing with the money that we have available.

So you have the circumstances in which you have not enough long-term care beds available in the system, let us say, in greater Winnipeg, so you have people who are sitting for weeks on end, nine, 12, 15, 30 weeks in beds on long-term care which are acute-care beds, our most expensive beds, and inappropriate treatment for long-term geriatric patients. They are sitting in there. What do you have to do? You have to create in some way long-term beds and better, more appropriate geriatric care for people in order to ensure that you have that.

So is that bad health care? No, it is not. It is better health care. Will it save us money? Yes, it will, absolutely. New Democrats are opposed to it. Can you believe that? Opposed to it. No change under any circumstances is all they say, and that is a tragedy.

We have to be in a continuum of moving from the very highly expensive and sometimes inappropriate care provided in acute-care institutions to less intrusive, more appropriate and less expensive care closer to the community. That is what we are doing, and New Democrats are opposed to it. Why? Because, very simply, they want to be in lockstep with their fellow union boss members, and they want to be in a straitjacket in which the only issue is not whether or not it is good health care for Manitoba and Manitobans, but the only issue is, what do their union boss friends want them to do? That is the only issue that they put forward, and, Madam Speaker, it is a tragedy.

Our health care system does not exist for the benefit of health care unions. It is there for the people of Manitoba. That is why it is there.

Madam Speaker, our education system does not exist for the benefit of the teachers' union or any other employment group in that education system. It is there for the benefit of the people of Manitoba and their children who will be educated in that education system.

Our Manitoba Telephone System does not exist for the benefit of its workforce; it exists for the benefit of the people of Manitoba and the services that they must have.

That is the difference, Madam Speaker, between the point of view of the members opposite and the point of view of our government. The people of Manitoba elected us to a higher calling, and that is to be in charge of all of the things that they depend upon, the services that government provides, the assets that government has care over, the taxes that we collect and spend on their behalf. That is the higher calling to which we have been elected to this Legislature. We do not exist here to serve the special interest needs of people like union bosses and others who rattle the cage of the members opposite.

Madam Speaker, it reminds me of a discussion I had with a New Democratic premier a while back who shall remain nameless, who said, it is impossible for me to serve the interests of the people of my province while I am being dictated to by the union bosses of this province. And he said, I cannot be put in a position of conflict of interest where my government has been elected by the people at large, but it is only expected to listen to the union bosses who dictate to my party. He said, the problem with the way a New Democratic Party is structured is that there are certain people there who have immense power over it because they could not exist without the unions. They could not exist without the unions for their money, for their organizing skills, and, indeed, for the resources that they put at the disposal of the New Democratic Party. That is the kind of difference that there is between having real accountability to the people of this province versus accountability only to certain people who rattle their cage and who dictate to them, Madam Speaker.

You know, it is interesting to show how out of touch they are. In the most recent speech that was given here by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) in his rationale for protecting the Manitoba Telephone System, he quotes comments of a very, very honourable and distinguished premier of this province, Sir Rodmond Roblin giving the rationale why, in 1905, the Manitoba Telephone System was important to be owned by the public. Because that is where they are, in a time warp, 90 years ago. The only understanding that they have of a problem is what the circumstances were in 1905 when it was decided to go ahead with having the telephone system in public ownership.

I have had those discussions. I have had those discussions with people who have read the history books and obviously knew the circumstances of the decision that was made at the time, and it was considered at that time to be a natural monopoly and the only way in which they could extend those services to all the rural and remote areas of the province and assure that there would be some equality of access to a telephone company at that time because the private sector did not have the resources, the wherewithal or the desire or the ability to provide telephone service to every small remote area of the province. It was a natural monopoly.

But guess what? We are in a circumstance today in which we are approaching 70 percent of the revenues of the telephone system that are no longer in a monopoly circumstance. They are in a field of open, active competition with primarily private-sector companies, and instead of having a monopoly, instead of having a natural monopoly circumstance, they are competing in the private sector with the private sector but have not the handicap now of being a public-sector entity which cannot react as quickly, cannot adapt technology as quickly, and cannot do, unfortunately, many of the things that are going to be needed to take part in a world in which they are in the most technologically advanced and advancing area of the economy.

* (1140)

The natural monopoly is now a handicap to them in order to be able to respond and take on the new opportunities. As a result, they are putting at risk, unfortunately, $800 million of taxpayers' money. That is what we have tied up in that corporation.

So we must evaluate the circumstances today and say, if Sir Rodmond's rationale was valid in 1905, is it valid in 1995? It is a simple question. Has there been enough change? Well, of course, 1905 was a monopoly circumstance that gave them advantages in being a monopoly corporation. Today we are no longer in a monopoly; 70 percent of the revenues are in a free, open, competitive market. We had better find out whether or not we can compete under those circumstances or whether we are putting $800 million of taxpayers' money at risk.

Madam Speaker, the members opposite know full well what happens when you get out of the comfort zone of the natural monopoly and into a competitive area. They went into MTX in Saudi Arabia, and they got their clocks cleaned, quite honestly, $27 million of taxpayers' money not only put at risk but poured down the toilet, lost in the sands of Saudi Arabia, because they did not understand the difference between operating in a monopoly circumstance in Manitoba and operating in a competitive market and environment in Saudi Arabia. They lost $27 million of our taxpayers' money because of their irresponsibility and because they did not understand the circumstances that they were going into.

Madam Speaker, just because the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is being a little quiet there, I just want to give him some food for thought. We in this province, like all the provinces of Canada, are now having to react and respond to some massive pressures created by decisions from Ottawa. Members opposite know full well that we have always argued that governments ought to live within their means and that we have done our level best to try and bring ourselves to the first balanced budget in 23 years in this province. It has taken, obviously, serious decisions and some very careful choices, none of which were easy.

But the federal government is doing things that I think are inexcusable, quite honestly. I mean, this is supposed to be co-operative federalism, and we are faced with a challenge to our unity here because one province in particular is speaking out about their concerns about how this federation does not work very well. What they show is here we have a distribution of responsibilities under the Constitution that was created almost 130 years ago when this federation was born, and the way in which those responsibilities were distributed probably does not make sense today.

What it has turned up is that we have at least 12 areas of absolute overlap of jurisdiction which both federal government and provinces are essentially treading in each other's territory, and what does it do? It results in people who look at us, say, out in the Prairies here and who see a project going on, let us say, it is a water management project. They see, maybe, people from the Department of Natural Resources of the provincial government involved in the development of that water management project, and then they see another set of trucks and bureaucrats that say PFRA on them, and they say, what are they doing there? Well, same thing. Dak samo, as they would say in Ukrainian.

They look at this and they say, what are they doing there? They are all both doing the same thing. You take a look throughout the piece. In Manitoba we have Energy and Mines personnel, and they do the inspection of mines, they do the licensing of mines, workplace safety, all those issues to do with mines, the development process. Everything is provincial, but we have more employees of the federal department of mines in Manitoba than we have provincial employees.

People say, what do they do? Same thing. [interjection] Well, you see, well, then, Ottawa will be offloading responsibility. I say not. I say, if we are intelligent human beings, what we should do is say, okay, you normally spend X-hundred million dollars in this area. We will take it over if you share the benefits and transfer a portion of that over to us and use the rest as savings to reduce your deficit and debt.

Is that unreasonable? I do not think it is. I think reasonable people, given that problem, can find a reasonable solution. I believe that to be the case. It is common sense. But we could go through the piece. Well, now you want to have co-operative federalism, and here is what you are faced with. Yesterday, or was it the day before--it might have been the day before--you have an announcement from Ottawa, on high, of a $720-million fund that has been made available for child care in Canada.

Here is the interesting thing. All that morning, Mr. Axworthy sat in with the Finance ministers from all the provinces of Canada and with Mr. Martin, did not say a word that he had this in mind or up his sleeve, sat through the entire morning's meeting and went out and had a news conference a half-hour after he left the meeting and announced this $720-million program, all on his own. There was no consideration of even telling them to give them a heads up, this is what I am going to do; no consultation with the provinces on the issue; no consultation with the Minister responsible for Family Services; no consultation with anybody. But he is being defended now by the member for Inkster.

I will tell you what the real indefensible part of it is. Here is the real indefensible part of it right now. The federal government is in the midst of reducing transfers to provinces; right out of their figures, right out of their books, $4.1 billion in '96-97 and $6.6 billion in '97-98.

So they take all of that money away from the provinces to provide for health, education, family services, child care, take it all away, take $4.1 billion, then $6.6 billion, and now they say, after we have done that to you, we are going to give $720 million back, but there is a string. You have to create new spaces.

Now, does that make sense? Does that make sense across the country when this province on a per capita basis has more child care spaces than any other province? This province added several thousand spaces in the last seven years. This province doubled the number of subsidized child care spaces since we have been in office, and we do not have a problem of enough spaces. If we have a problem, it is not enough funding.

So they take away all this funding from us in the Manitoba context this coming year--$147 million is three times the entire child care budget that they are taking away from us--and they are going to put some back if we create more spaces that we do not need.

Now, that really makes sense. I tell you, Madam Speaker, this is not co-operative federalism, this is not consultation. If the New Democrats are in a time warp, so are the Liberals in Ottawa in a time warp, because he is trying to solve a problem that does not exist, that may have existed seven years ago when he last looked at it, but does not exist today in Manitoba. So he has the wrong solution for the wrong problem, and he is in a time warp as much as the New Democrats are.

It is the Big Brother approach that really, I think, ought to be condemned by the people of this province and every other province. To consider that you would do this in a way that does not serve the needs of the people of this province, that does not serve the needs, probably, of people in many provinces because one-size-fits-all does not work. What does work is if you would consult, if you would ask what the issues are in child care in Manitoba. Indeed, one of them is the wages that are paid to the people who work in child care, affordability. All of those things ought to be addressed; none of them are addressed by the solution that Mr. Axworthy brings in. That is an issue that has to be dealt with. That is an issue that I believe there ought to be tremendous criticism for.

* (1150)

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, my concern is that the members opposite, particularly in the New Democratic Party, are so negative towards everything that is happening in our society, so negative towards all of the opportunities. This Manitoba of ours is an exceedingly better place to invest in today than it was a decade ago. You take a look at all of the numbers; we are going to have all-time, record-high levels of capital investment this year, $4.2 billion. That follows upon an all-time, record-high level of capital investment last year in our province. Last year our growth rate was 3.8 percent. This year it is expected to be 2.5 percent, which is going to be above the national average, and we are going to continue to have reasonable growth next year and probably beyond.

We are having investments, as I said earlier, by people like Canadian Agra, people like Schneider, people like McCain, people like Simplot and Nestle-Carnation and all of those people who are investing in the value-added agriculture. Repap, $250 million expansion and reconfiguration of their integrated forestry complex at The Pas. That is as a result of seeing a very good investment climate here. This ought to be of interest to the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), because we have opened a number of new mines already this year in Manitoba and have another one to be opened that they will be starting in April in Bissett.

Why is it there? It is there because we have created an environment that is the most attractive environment in Canada for investing in mining exploration. We hit an all-time record level of mineral exploration in 1993. We exceeded that level in 1994, and we are having another good year in 1995. That is why mining is doing so well.

I read the column of the member for Flin Flon, a member whom we treat with respect and who has been with us at openings of these mines and activities in the North in his constituency, and he says, it is because mining is doing well everywhere in Canada. No, it is not doing very well. As a matter of fact, all you have to do is talk to the mining companies. Talk to the mining companies. They recognize the difference. There is no secret why our mines and minerals conference had the biggest turnout in history this year, had more participants than ever before in all of the activities of the minerals conference. It is because of the climate and the specific policies of this administration.

He does not even have the courtesy to be able to acknowledge that. He tells his constituents that it is doing well everywhere. You know, he is the beneficiary of hundreds of jobs because of the policies of this administration. He has hundreds of people working in his area that did not work before.

The retail sales increase in 1994 was the largest in nine years in Manitoba, and guess what? This year it is up 6.2 percent, which is the second best increase in the country. The economy in every area is doing well and doing better than most areas of Canada.

What we are doing, of course, is plugging in on the different--[interjection] Sorry, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) says, the trade deficit is worse. You have new plants coming in here and they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars of new production machinery. The Louisiana-Pacific plant alone, the production machinery that has to be brought in from outside because we do not manufacture it here in this province is tens of millions of dollars.

The McCain's plant expansion, tens of millions of dollars of new production machinery. The whole expansion for the plant at Brandon comes from Sicily, all of that production equipment. So hundreds of jobs are being created by bringing in this production machinery.

The member for Crescentwood is against it. I cannot believe him, Madam Speaker. He is the most negative, most absolutely shameless critic with mindless criticism day after day with no sense of what is good for the people, what is good for the economy. All he thinks about is what is good for his own ego to be able to come up with a criticism that gets him onto Question Period. It is ignorant, it is mindless, and it is a terrible, terrible sense of obligation to the people who elected him.

Madam Speaker, the criticism that goes on day after day after day of any business that is doing well, any new business that comes into this province, criticism of the Faneuil group coming here, and I remind members opposite that the Faneuil corporation has met all of its targets and exceeded them. By August of 1995 they were supposed to have 100 full-time jobs. They have 340 jobs, 240 full-time equivalent positions. They were supposed to have a payroll of about two and a half million. Their payroll exceeded six million this year.

The work they are doing for the Manitoba Telephone System for $5 million that the Manitoba Telephone System has spent with the company, they have added $15 million of revenue, three to one return for the investment that they are making. They have added millions of minutes of use to the telephone system, long distance tolls that are being paid through the telephone system just for the use of it. They have brought business that existed in the United States and moved some of their accounts here. They were supposed to have achieved, I believe it is something like, on projection, about $50 million of revenue and this year they exceeded $72 million of revenue. The business is booming.

In the course of the seven years of the agreement they will have paid $18 million in taxes, plus they will have repaid the entire $16 million of loan capital, plus they will have employed a thousand people, and the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) say it is a bad deal. That speaks volumes about the real interest of the people of the New Democratic Party. They want to kill jobs, kill investment and destroy opportunity in this province, all for their own cheap political gain and that is why they are sitting on the opposite side of this Legislature. That is why they are sitting on the opposite side of this Legislature.

Madam Speaker, that is a tragedy, that is an absolute tragedy that members opposite could be so self-centred and so narrow-minded that their own cheap political gain is all that ever motivates them.

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, actually "cheap political" is out of order, and I also would ask, I believe there might be leave to not see the clock at twelve o'clock to allow the Premier to complete his speech.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order, indeed "cheap political shots" has been ruled unparliamentary in the past, and I would ask the honourable First Minister to exercise caution in the choice of his words.

* * *

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the honourable First Minister to go beyond twelve o'clock?

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Madam Speaker: Leave has been granted.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the words "cheap political shots" or whatever it was I said. [interjection]

I will just say to the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) that if the decision as to whether or not he spoke in this Assembly was based on whether or not he was good, we would never hear him.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about responsibility and talk about the members opposite to tell people, like the Burger King slogan, you can have it your way, every time they meet with somebody. As I said earlier they can be all of the things that they want to be in their own minds, but their colleagues who are in government are making decisions every day. New Democrats across this country are making decisions every day. And here is, for instance, a clipping from the Victoria Times columnist in British Columbia in which the social services minister, Joy McPhail, said B.C. is actively considering measures to reduce the number of people on welfare similar to those Ontario's Tory government announced in Wednesday's throne speech.

* (1200)

When they say that this government is acting too much like Mike Harris' Tories, well, so is their B.C. NDP government. But in justifying the changes that are going to be directed towards forcing people on welfare to work or take training, she says, now this is what Joy McPhail says, and I admire Joy McPhail. I want to tell you that I think that she is a person with a great deal of commitment and courage. She is unlike anybody opposite. The members opposite have no courage and no commitment. They try to be all things to all people and that is why they remain opposite, Madam Speaker.

But Joy McPhail says, and I quote. Listen to this: The difference between us and the new Tory government in Ontario is that we have concentrated on removing fraud and abuse from the system and putting the dollars to those who are truly in need.

That is exactly what our Minister of Family Services did and the members opposite criticized, saying it was terrible to have a welfare abuse line. Terrible to have welfare fraud be investigated and reported. Terrible to share figures between provinces so that we eliminated people who were collecting in two different provinces. It is okay for a New Democrat to do it in British Columbia, but it is not okay for a Conservative to do it in Manitoba. That is the kind of hypocrisy, inconsistency and ignorance that does not serve members opposite well at all.

I want to just quote something else for you here. Here is a story that says: The government plans significant spending cutbacks in the next provincial budget. Grants to health districts and school boards represent such a huge portion of the Health and Education budgets that, quote, you cannot exempt them.

Now, did this come from a Manitoba newspaper? Did this come from an Alberta Newspaper? Did this come from an Ontario newspaper? This came from the Star-Phoenix in Saskatoon. And the person being quoted is Janice MacKinnon, the Minister of Finance.

This is a responsible New Democrat. This is somebody with integrity. This is somebody with honesty, all qualities that are never found in the members opposite in this Chamber.

These people know that to govern is to be responsible. These people know that to govern is to make choices and to be honest with the public, and that is not something that we see in members opposite.

The worst criticism is that of the ideologically blind members opposite. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I do not want to in any way breach the rules, but since the member opposite did not have the benefit, I will tell the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) that I said all of those things earlier and he might want to read Hansard. He might want to read Hansard to see the vision and to see the direction that this government sees for the future.

Members opposite absolutely blindly in their ideology criticized, condemned the balanced budget legislation. I want to tell you that people everywhere in this province are saying that is the greatest assurance that they have of having their health care provided, having their education preserved and improved, and having family services funded properly to meet the needs of people.

The balanced budget is what they want, the balanced budget is what they got.

We have people everywhere, objective people right across this country writing in the Financial Post. I will not quote them all because they are writing in The Globe and Mail.

Here is a column from the Edmonton Journal. I do not know the writer. It is entitled, Manitoba Tories pull off Major Economic Revolution. He goes on to say that the legislation that we have is legislation that will indeed be of tremendous benefit to the people of this province for all time in future. He goes on to compare our legislation to that of Ralph Klein and that of Frank McKenna. He says, in conclusion, that McKenna always leaves out the fact that his government fudges the numbers and leaves out all sorts of things in it such as capital expenditures and everything else.

The member opposite has asked what the Dominion Bond Rating agency said. So I think I have a quote here somewhere. Here it is. I will quote from the Dominion Bond Rating agency. It says in their report of April 1995, quote: Manitoba's fiscal performance since 1990-91 has consistently been among the most favourable in Canada.

Under the Financial Post, it says: Premier Gary Filmon and his Tory government deserve full marks for proposing a balanced budget law with teeth.

Quote: Manitoba has been the only Canadian province to successfully reduce its deficit without raising any major taxes in recent years--Standard and Poor's, September of 1995

Quote: We view the Province of Manitoba as a high A credit with an improving outlook. The province is rated A-1 by Moody's, and A-plus with a stable outlook by Standard and Poor's. We believe an upgrade by the rating agencies as possible in the next two years. Manitoba's strengths include sound fiscal policy-- Lehman Bros. brokerage firm of New York, September of 1995.

Madam Speaker, I could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that objective observers everywhere in North America are saying that this government is doing a good job of managing the economy; that this government has created an environment in which we welcome investment and, in fact, we are attracting investment, the like of which we have never seen in our history; that this government has created an environment that has led to more jobs and more economic opportunities, more investment and help everywhere, everywhere in our economy.

I want to just say, in conclusion, that I was very, very disappointed to listen to the negativity, to see the incredibly distorted and wrong perspective that has been taken day after day by members opposite. They are in a time warp, like the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). They quote authorities of 90 years ago as the basis for their policies today; a 90-year-old quote is the basis on which they make their current judgments. Unbelievable, Madam Speaker, unbelievable. That is not the kind of future that Manitobans are looking forward to.

* (1210)

Thankfully, the members opposite will remain opposite for the next four and a half years and Manitobans will get good government because for the third time they elected us to office to look after their affairs and to create the kind of energy, enthusiasm and opportunity that they are looking for.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to take this opportunity to wish all members opposite, all of our staff and support in the Chamber, the very best of the holiday season, a very happy, healthy and prosperous 1996. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the motion for an address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Do members wish to have the motion read?

Some Honourable Members: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense. All those in favour of the motion, is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Voice Vote

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Yeas

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.

Nays

Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 30, Nays 25.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), (by leave) that when the House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until a time fixed by Madam Speaker upon the request of the government.

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity to wish all honourable members and their families a very peaceful Christmas and a New Year filled with peace, happiness, good health and prosperity.

This House is adjourned.